Ingenuity13 LLC v. John Doe

Filing
28

ORDER VACATING PRIOR EARLY DISCOVERY ORDERS AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Otis D Wright, II: This copyright infringement case filed by Plaintiff Ingenuity 13 LLC has been transferred to this Court. The Court hereby VACATES any prior order in this case allowing for the issuance of a Rule 45 subpoena prior to a Rule 26(f) scheduling conference. The Court also orders Ingenuity 13 to cease its discovery efforts relating to or based on information obtained through any above mentioned Rule 45 subpo enas Ingenuity 13s previously issued subpoenas in this case are hereby QUASHED. Within 3 days of this order, Ingenuity 13 must serve a copy of this order to all parties it subpoenaed in this case. Further, Ingenuity 13 must submit a discovery status report detailing its discovery efforts in this case with respect to identifying or locating the Doe Defendant by December 31, 2012. This report must name all persons Ingenuity 13 TO SHOW CAUSE in writing by December 31, 2012, why early discovery is w arranted in this situation. No appearances are necessary. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, a plaintiff should ordinarily be allowed discovery to uncover their identities, but discovery may be denied if it is (1) clear that discovery would not uncover t he identities, or (2) that the complaint would be dismissed on other grounds. Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). Ingenuity 13 must demonstrate to the Court, in light of the Courts above discussion, how it would proceed to unco ver the identity of the actual infringer once it has obtained subscriber information given that the actual infringer may be a person entirely unrelated to the subscriber while also considering how to minimize harassment and embarrassment of innocent citizens. Ingenuity 13 must also explain how it can guarantee to the Court that any such subscriber information would not be used to simply coerce a settlement from the subscriber (the easy route), as opposed to finding out who the true infringer is (the hard route).Ingenuity 13s discovery status report and response to this Order to Show Cause should be filed only in case no. 2:12-cv-6662-ODW(JCx), and should be combined with the discovery status reports and responses for the related Ingenuity 13 cases. Failure to timely comply with this order will result in the dismissal of this case. (lc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
INGENUITY 13 LLC,
11
12
13
14
v.
Plaintiff,
JOHN DOE,
Case No. 2:12-cv-8333-ODW(JCx)
ORDER VACATING PRIOR EARLY
DISCOVERY ORDERS AND
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Defendant.
15
This copyright infringement case filed by Plaintiff Ingenuity 13 LLC has been
16
transferred to this Court. The Court hereby VACATES any prior order in this case
17
allowing for the issuance of a Rule 45 subpoena prior to a Rule 26(f) scheduling
18
conference. The Court also orders Ingenuity 13 to cease its discovery efforts relating
19
to or based on information obtained through any abovementioned Rule 45
20
subpoenas—Ingenuity 13’s previously issued subpoenas in this case are hereby
21
QUASHED. Within 3 days of this order, Ingenuity 13 must serve a copy of this order
22
to all parties it subpoenaed in this case.
23
Further, Ingenuity 13 must submit a discovery status report detailing its
24
discovery efforts in this case with respect to identifying or locating the Doe Defendant
25
by December 31, 2012. This report must name all persons that have been identified,
26
including subscribers, through any Rule 45 subpoenas.
27
The Court is concerned with the potential for discovery abuse in cases like this.
28
Ingenuity 13 accuses the Doe Defendant of illegally copying a pornographic video.
1
But the only information Ingenuity 13 has is the IP address of the Doe Defendant. An
2
IP address alone may yield subscriber information. But that will only lead to the
3
person paying for the internet service and not necessarily the actual infringer, who
4
may be a family member, roommate, employee, customer, guest, or even a complete
5
stranger. Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1–10, No. 2:12-cv-01642-RGK-SSx, slip
6
op. at 4 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2012). And given the subject matter of Ingenuity 13’s
7
accusations and the economics of defending such a lawsuit, it is highly likely that the
8
subscriber would immediately pay a settlement demand—regardless whether the
9
subscriber is the actual infringer. This Court has a duty to protect the innocent
10
citizens of this district from this sort of legal shakedown, even though a copyright
11
holder’s rights may be infringed by a few deviants. And unlike law enforcement in
12
child pornography or other internet crime cases, the Court has no guarantee from a
13
private party that subscriber information will not abused or that it would be used for
14
the benefit of the public. Thus, when viewed with the public interest in mind, the
15
Court is reluctant to allow any fishing-expedition discovery when all a plaintiff has is
16
an IP address—the burden is on the plaintiff to find other ways to more precisely
17
identify the accused infringer without causing collateral damage.
18
Thus, the Court hereby ORDERS Ingenuity 13 TO SHOW CAUSE in writing
19
by December 31, 2012, why early discovery is warranted in this situation.
No
20
appearances are necessary.
21
ordinarily be allowed discovery to uncover their identities, but discovery may be
22
denied if it is (1) clear that discovery would not uncover the identities, or (2) that the
23
complaint would be dismissed on other grounds. Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637,
24
642 (9th Cir. 1980). Ingenuity 13 must demonstrate to the Court, in light of the
25
Court’s above discussion, how it would proceed to uncover the identity of the actual
26
infringer once it has obtained subscriber information—given that the actual infringer
27
may be a person entirely unrelated to the subscriber—while also considering how to
28
minimize harassment and embarrassment of innocent citizens. Ingenuity 13 must also
Under Ninth Circuit precedent, a plaintiff should
2
1
explain how it can guarantee to the Court that any such subscriber information would
2
not be used to simply coerce a settlement from the subscriber (the easy route), as
3
opposed to finding out who the true infringer is (the hard route).
4
Ingenuity 13’s discovery status report and response to this Order to Show Cause
5
should be filed only in case no. 2:12-cv-6662-ODW(JCx), and should be combined
6
with the discovery status reports and responses for the related Ingenuity 13 cases.
7
Failure to timely comply with this order will result in the dismissal of this case.
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
December 20, 2012
10
11
12
____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.